fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents ITS-Tools' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

ITS-Tools versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for GreatSPN, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN
All computed OK 85 108 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 7 Times tool wins 258 832
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 890 Times tool wins 247 843
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 83 587


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus tedd-c

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for tedd-c, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to tedd-c are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools tedd-c Both tools   ITS-Tools tedd-c
All computed OK 34 215 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = tedd-c 1 Times tool wins 763 434
ITS-Tools > tedd-c 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < tedd-c 947 Times tool wins 227 970
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 213 35 480


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than tedd-c, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than tedd-c, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, tedd-c wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for LoLa+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LoLa+red Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLa+red
All computed OK 982 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 982 0
ITS-Tools > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 982 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 985 693


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than LoLa+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LoLa+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LTSMin+red Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin+red
All computed OK 307 25 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin+red 674 Times tool wins 514 493
ITS-Tools > LTSMin+red 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 672 335
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 308 670


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LTSMin+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for Marcie+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Marcie+red Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie+red
All computed OK 280 18 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Marcie+red 11 Times tool wins 947 53
ITS-Tools > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Marcie+red 691 Times tool wins 828 172
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 281 677


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Marcie+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for Smart+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Smart+red Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart+red
All computed OK 356 31 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Smart+red 5 Times tool wins 749 264
ITS-Tools > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Smart+red 621 Times tool wins 797 216
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 2 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 355 663


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than Smart+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Smart+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for 2022-gold, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2022-gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2022-gold
All computed OK 42 216 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 782 416
ITS-Tools > 2022-gold 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2022-gold 939 Times tool wins 373 825
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 214 43 479


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2022-gold, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for BVT-2023, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, ITS-Tools is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how ITS-Tools compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When ITS-Tools is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools BVT-2023 Both tools   ITS-Tools BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 259 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2023 21 Times tool wins 0 1240
ITS-Tools > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2023 960 Times tool wins 0 1240
Do not compete 0 436 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 692 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than BVT-2023, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for LTSMin, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
All computed OK 260 25 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin 721 Times tool wins 370 637
ITS-Tools > LTSMin 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 493 514
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 261 670


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LTSMin, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for Marcie, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
All computed OK 317 17 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Marcie 10 Times tool wins 948 51
ITS-Tools > Marcie 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Marcie 655 Times tool wins 781 218
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 319 677


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than Marcie, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Marcie, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for pnmc, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools pnmc Both tools   ITS-Tools pnmc
All computed OK 136 49 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = pnmc 497 Times tool wins 870 161
ITS-Tools > pnmc 349   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < pnmc 0 Times tool wins 296 735
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 47 137 646


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than pnmc, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than pnmc, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, pnmc wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for ITS-Tools and 1678 for Smart, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Smart Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart
All computed OK 391 19 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Smart 6 Times tool wins 534 467
ITS-Tools > Smart 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Smart 584 Times tool wins 717 284
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 24 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 368 675


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools computed more values than Smart, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Smart, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart